“If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to recycling plastics

Despite significant investment to increase recycling facilities and kerbside collection of waste materials, plastic packaging is frequently discarded as litter, resulting in significant environmental harm. This research uses qualitative methods to explore the contextual and psychological factors that influence plastic waste disposal behaviour from the perspectives of consumers. This research also reports key results from a brief online survey exploring consumer perspectives toward plastics and plastic recycling. A total of N = 18 adults living in Northern Ireland (NI) participated in a semi-structured interview and N = 756 adults living in NI took part in an online survey. Interview data was analysed via a semi-directed content analysis approach, using the COM-B behaviour change model as a guiding framework. Survey data underwent descriptive and frequency analysis. Collectively, the findings suggest that environmental concern exists among consumers generally, but there is a degree of ambivalence toward recycling that reflects a gap between intentions to recycle and actual recycling behaviour. Plastic recycling behaviour is hindered by three common barriers: 1. confusion and uncertainty about which plastic materials can be recycled (exacerbated by the abundance of plastic products available) 2. perceiving plastic recycling to be less of a personal priority in daily life 3. perceiving that local government and manufacturers have a responsibility to make plastic recycling easier. As recycling is simply not a priority for many individuals, efforts should instead be placed on providing greater scaffolding to make the process of recycling less tedious, confusing, and more habitual. Visual cues on product packing and recycling resources can address ambiguity about which plastic materials can/cannot be recycled and increasing opportunities to recycle (via consistent availability of recycling bins) can reduce the physical burden of accessing recycling resources. Such interventions, based on environmental restructuring and enablement, may increase motivations to recycle by reducing the cognitive and physical burden of recycling, supporting healthier recycling habits.

Ethics approval was obtained through Queen's University Belfast prior to recruitment and written/typed informed consent was obtained from participants using electronic and physical consent forms. Yes -all data are fully available without restriction  [2]. Never has their benefits been more visible than in the production of Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of Covid-19. However, plastics were never intended to end up in our oceans, rivers and beaches and because of alarming levels of plastic pollution, plastic items have instead become a symbol of pollution and both human environmental harm [3].

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
One important action, supported globally, but more recently by America's leading plastic manufacturers [1] is to "engage the entire plastics value chain, from plastic makers to brand companies, to all Americans". The vision being, that plastics are routinely reused, and plastic waste is diverted from landfills and our oceans. In Europe, laudable goals have been set to increase the reuse of plastic waste, and yet the production of new or virgin plastics, far exceeds recycling rates [4].
An increase in the reuse of household plastic waste to make an important contribution to the circular economy, is predicated upon householders and consumers increasing existing recycling rates to optimal levels. Efforts to increase recycling behaviour will therefore need to draw on the latest research on human behavioural decision making around recycling, which spans the last 30-40 years. Most of this research has focused on understanding influences on human motivation, and when it comes taking action, and a dominant theory is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [5,6]; which explains that behaviour intentions are influenced directly by favourable or unfavourable attitudes towards the behaviour, the extent to which one feels social pressure to engage in the desired behaviour, and how easy or difficult one perceives the behaviour to be. Despite its widespread application, a major review of the use of TPB revealed that 86% of these studies neglect various indirect factors that can influence behaviours [7]. These factors include demographics [8][9][10][11][12]), rewards [10], feedback [11], recycling scheme design [13], scheme knowledge [14], environmental concern [15], antecedent behaviour [16], personal norms [17], and emotions [18,19].
The TPB model [5,6] is often applied without also measuring variables pertaining to the environmental context and any physical barriers which may exist, or the fact that waste disposal is part of our daily routines. If a behaviour is habitual, this, in of itself, becomes a barrier to any attempts to change that behaviour, because of the influence of environmental triggers or cues [20].
For example, very familiar signs can activate certain actions, with little thought going into the actual process [21], likewise, emotional responses to certain environmental stimuli can seamlessly drive or thwart certain actions [22]. The TPB, by placing an exclusive emphasis on psychological factors, consequently, falls short of being a comprehensive framework to explain recycling behaviour. We must therefore look to a more pluralistic framework, that considers situational factors as well as psychological factors. Such a framework is the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour [23,24], which captures all the factors important in a complex behaviour such as recycling. The COM-B model hypothesises that the interaction between three components, Capability, Opportunity and Motivation (COM), causes the performance (or not) of Behaviour (B). Capability refers to psychological and physical capability, where psychological capability is the capacity to engage in the thought processes necessary for the performance of the behaviour, and physical capability is the capacity to engage in the physical activity necessary for performance of the behaviour.
Opportunity covers all those factors that lie outside the individual that make the behaviour possible and can prompt it. It is divided into physical opportunity (the opportunities provided by the environment such as kerbside collection services and recycling bins) and social opportunity (the impact of the cultural context on our thoughts/beliefs). Motivation is divided into reflective and automatic motivation. Reflective motivation concerns our evaluations/beliefs that are relevant to the behaviour; automatic motivation refers to our emotions and impulses or habits, that are relevant to the behaviour and may be activated by visual cues.
Previous research on recycling behaviour has focused on the capability and motivation aspects of this model but has paid much less attention to the opportunity element. More specifically, we do not know the extent to which physical opportunity could impact on recycling behaviour and given this gap, we are still lacking a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of recycling behaviour. Physical opportunities, in the context of the COM-B model, could also refer to the nature/design of the material that ought to be recycled, the complexity of the behaviour required to recycle, and any support or prompts provided to encourage recycling.
Furthermore, a recent review [25] highlighted that while there has been a considerable amount of literature dedicated to understanding waste management behaviour, recycling, and the motivations behind it, research has mainly focused on the recycling of general waste, and not plastics specifically. The limited studies which have looked at plastic, have focused mainly on drinks bottles and plastic bags [25] or at waste in our oceans [26]. In addition, with increasing availability of compostable/eco plastics, there is greater variability in the plastic products that individuals are presented with in day-to-day life, which can add to the confusion about what plastic materials are recyclable [27].
According to Garcia and Robertson (2017) [28], about half of the annual global production of solid plastics, or 150 million tonnes, is thrown away worldwide each year. This inappropriate and irresponsible disposal of potentially recyclable material must be urgently addressed because; the environment is harmed when plastics reside in landfill or enter our water courses [29]; it is an economic opportunity cost [28]; and recycling plastics to use again saves energy compared with producing virgin materials.
When recycling facilities are present, successful recycling of plastics will depend, to a large degree, on individual behaviour. Not only do individuals need to distinguish between general waste and recyclable waste, but they are also required to separate out their recyclable plastics, because removing plastics from mixed waste after collection is not cost effective [30].
Therefore, it is imperative that we understand all the determinants of plastics recycling behaviour if we are to reduce the unsustainable situation regarding plastics use and disposal.
The strength of using qualitative techniques is that it allows the researcher to gain insights to thought processes around plastic disposal, in the environmental context where the recycling is mostly taking place (e.g., in the home). It also enables the researcher to probe and test decision making, and degree to which associated psychological and situational factors interact.
This study aims to isolate and understand the capability, opportunity and motivation factors which may determine rates of recycling of plastics behaviour. This is an important step towards identifying behaviour change strategies that may increase recycling of plastic products and packaging.

Rationale
The detailed explanation of the theoretical framework (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour) is available elsewhere [23,24].

Study Design
This qualitative study adopted a semi-structured interview design which was deemed most appropriate to address this complex research question. Ethics approval was obtained through Queen's University Belfast prior to recruitment and written/typed informed consent was obtained from participants using electronic and physical consent forms. An online survey of 756 NI residents designed to examine perceptions about plastic use, and plastic food packaging, provided a useful reference point for this qualitative study. This data related particularly to opportunity and motivation components of the COM-B model and are referred to in the results section (see Table 2). This study is written in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines to support the sound reporting of methods and findings [31].

Sample and Recruitment
Recruitment took place during Autumn 2019, using convenience sampling via university websites, social media (Twitter, Facebook etc.) and word of mouth. Local supermarkets and businesses were also asked to place the flyers in their shop windows. Interested participants made contact through the researcher's university email address. Potential participants were provided with an information sheet and consent form in advance and advised that interviews would be recorded. The interviews took place on university premises. Participants were reimbursed reasonable travel expenses. Before the interviews began, the participants were given the information sheet and offered the chance to ask questions. The participants were also advised that they could stop at any time during the interview. If they still wished to proceed, they completed the consent form. Age and sex of participants is displayed in Table 1.

Data Collection
All the researchers involved in the coding and analysis (DR, MD, EB) were experienced in the use of qualitative methods and adopted a phenomenological approach [32]. Semi structured questions and the interview schedule were designed based on COM-B theoretical domains. The semi-structured interview schedule included example scenarios to elicit current behaviours, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings towards a range of plastic products across familiar, everyday contexts. DR conducted the interviews and is an experienced qualitative researcher with a phenomenological orientation, but who also integrates this naturalistic enquiry with a realist stance [33]. This is because of her experience and knowledge of applying socio-cognitive models to explain sustainable behaviour and attitudes towards the environment. Pre-existing assumptions were acknowledged as potentially influencing interpretation of findings due to the subjective nature of this methodology, however, biased interpretation was mitigated by members checking of codes and regular team meetings to discuss the analysis [34]. The interviews lasted 45 minutes on average, and these were audio recorded. Three members of staff from the department participated, but otherwise, the participants were unknown to DR before the interviews took place. The research team (DR, MD, EB) held coding meetings regularly, and concluded, after 18 interviews, that no new themes of note were emerging and consequently were satisfied that saturation point had been reached [35].

Data analysis
The analysis was based on a semi-directed content analysis approach [36] along with a search for emerging themes. The researchers therefore allowed for the possibility of novel patterns to emerge while also considering the findings within the context of the COM-B framework, and other relevant theoretical frameworks. This also preserved the flexibility to offer interpretations of all the data, and to allow themes to be derived from the data. DR initially familiarised herself with the data and used NVivo 12 software to assist with coding by category and consistency, and then looked for any patterns that presented. This was an iterative process. A reflexive record was kept of the decision-making of the researcher as she coded and searched for patterns in the data.

Trustworthiness and data quality
A subset of the transcripts was coded by other members of the team (MD and EB) to ensure reliability and to ensure that findings were trustworthy and practically sound. Overarching themes were finally identified and checked by the research team to confirm they provided a good representation of the findings [36]. This process ensured that reflexivity was maintained throughout the analysis to support credibility and confirmability, particularly with recognition of the potential influence of researcher bias [34].

Results
A total of 18 participants were interviewed (see Table 1 for demographics). The themes extracted from the data are set within the context of the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations system (the 'COM-B' system [23,24,38]. Additional supporting quotes are provided in the 'supporting information' file. However, naturally there was a certain degree of conceptual overlap in the topics that participants raised. The overarching themes, framed by the COM-B constructs, were as follows : 1)    would be unsure about, and they would go in the black bin" ID8.

Lack of information-seeking behaviour, to reduce uncertainty
Vining and Ebreo (1990) [40] found that knowledge is a significant predictor of recycling behaviour. But rather than seeking information from local authorities and recycling companies to educate themselves and aid decision making, our respondents instead appeared to routinely rely upon heuristics and routine.

Expectancy that others should take action
Third parties (government and business) were blamed for not doing more to encourage recycling. This resulted in a paradox in the responses, where more government regulation and less plastic manufacturing was advocated, hence removing choice, but more choice of products provided by retailers was also supported. The unifying element of this paradox is that participants were expecting action by perceived powerful others that would cause a change in their behaviour.
Manufacturers of plastic products were perceived to have some responsibility for any problems caused by plastic pollution. Participants suggested that manufacturers should produce less plastic or find alternative forms of plastic, and, in some cases, this was seen to be more effective than individual behaviour to deal with plastic pollution.  Table 2. The survey findings reinforce importance of themes extracted relating to the reduction of physical obstacles to increase accessibility and ease of recycling in practice, and the need to motivate recycling in creative ways.

Discussion
This study sought to examine the facilitators and barriers to plastics recycling by consumers, using the COM-B model as a guide. The findings of the content analysis reveal that almost two thirds of the data fall under the headings of physical capability and physical opportunity, with psychological capability and reflective motivation accounting for remaining third of the data.
There is less evidence in the data about the role of automatic motivation or social opportunity.
Overall, the main themes point to a knowledge gap; a lack of understanding and confusion about how to recycle plastic waste properly and unclear recycling instructions. This co-exists with a lack of willingness to seek out such instruction that is provided by local authorities.
Witnessing plastic pollution harming marine life and places of natural beauty, for some, is an emotional nudge to reducing plastic waste and could activate personal motivation to recycle.
But without these visual cues, our respondents lack sufficient motivation to seek the detailed information needed about local recycling policies and educational materials. The recycling of plastic waste is a complex behaviour and poses specific challenges for householders. The reality is many simply do not want to be faced with uncertainty and confusion when trying to perform what, to them, should be made an easy, effortless behaviour.
Participants in the study indicated that the current labelling on plastic packaging adds to that confusion. The confusion expressed by participants has been found in previous research. Most recently, WRAP (2020) [42]  Not surprisingly, then, one of the solutions offered by participants, to improve recycling of plastics is to have clearer labels on the packaging. Participants reported that existing labels are unhelpful and can only add to confusion. They prefer clear, unambiguous labels and colour coding was also suggested. Labelling about recycling on packaging has previously been found to be a cause of confusion and a determinant of successful recycling [46].
Colour coding of bins was also suggested as a way of helping to identify which types of recycling waste is placed, in which bin. The colour of bins and other aspects of recycling bin design are associated with appropriate separation of waste and acceptability of a recycling scheme [14,47]. This issue is considered important enough to involve the public in the design of recycling bins in Greece [48]. Participants in the present study additionally indicated that it 7would be preferable for the colour of bins and what should be placed in that bin to be standardised throughout the country. Again, this is an example of how making things easy at the point of recycling, so that waste separation becomes a habitual process, is desirable. On this basis, Burgess et al., (2021) [49] have recommended using one bin for all household plastics recycling, although they acknowledged that this will impact on other parts of the recycling process.
Although the participants in the present study were positive about recycling, this turns to negativity when recycling is not easy. In other words, there are limits to the sacrifices or efforts that individuals are prepared to make to recycle plastics. Recycling is also less likely to happen as financial or time costs increase. Our data does not allow us to estimate the strength of this relationship or to determine whether the relationship is linear, but the data suggests that the relationship exists, in some form. Our data also points to the need for a further in-depth investigation of the decision-making processes involved around plastic waste disposal.
Our study signals that participants expected government, manufacturers and retailers to do more to manage the amount of plastic in society. This indicates a belief that addressing the reduction and recycling of plastics is not within the locus of control of the individual. An internal locus of control has been shown to be related to environmentally responsible behaviour [50], so these findings might give some cause for concern. However, more recent research suggests that both internal and external control are associated with pro-environmental behaviour [51]. Therefore, perhaps participants are simply expressing a credible view that everyone involved in the circular plastics economy must play a role in improving the situation.
While successful plastic recycling largely depends on public behaviour, retailers can have a powerful impact on consumers purchasing environmentally conscious products [52], and government levies can be effective in reducing plastic waste [53], although government intervention is not by itself a panacea [54].
What this research highlights, are that contextual factors, such as waste disposal infrastructure, and the characteristics of food packaging, are having a significant negative impact on plastic recycling behaviour. Obvious important action, rather than relying upon websites to convey recycling information to householders and consumers by third parties, is to also model the importance of plastics recycling [55]. So, if third parties (manufacturers, government, retailers) take action to make recycling easier, this could have a twofold impact on consumers' behaviour.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The data suggests that the negative impacts of not recycling are easy to set aside because there is no ongoing, visual reminder of this impact and responsibility is not equally shared among all those who have a role to place in the value plastics chain. The recycling of plastic waste is a complex behaviour and poses specific challenges for householders who simply do not want to be faced with uncertainty and confusion when trying to perform what, to them, should be made an automatic, effortless behaviour. It seems having to make an extra effort becomes a barrier, and good intentions to recycle will be set aside. The upshot of this is that visible impact of plastics on the environment needs to feature regularly when promoting plastic waste recycling to the public, and the act itself needs to be made as convenient as possible, to maximise the behaviour.
The primary recommendations from this research, which will involve action by government, manufacturers, retailers and consumers are:  Plastic packaging should have visual, unambiguous cues about whether it can be recycled.
 Bins should be colour coded to assist with the separation of waste and it would be beneficial if these colours were standardised throughout the country and matched with colour coding on packaging.